# Spy Satellites **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 31, 2002, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852 "2002-12-31T12:17:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/21 "2003-01-02T07:55:10Z")
Consider that earth bound telescopes like Keck use a technology called a “guide star” where they shoot a laser into the atmosphere, and see how it is distorted, and then adjust the lenses to compensate. Hubble does not have this as far as I know because it is above the atmosphere. However, spy satellites pointed at the ground in all probability do, and so can resolve things quite nicely when necessary. You do, however, need to have the satellite within range over what you want when you want it, which is very difficult for satellites in fixed orbits. Unmaned reconnisance planes like Predator, Global Star and Dark Star can hover all day and night over an area and get good real time moving pictures of what is going on without being observed. So this kind of data is going to be preferred unless the target is a big country like China where airspace is closed. So if someone were to ask me how good satellite and unmanned planes are at pictures, I’d speculate that they could read the photocredits on a local newspaper a guy was reading at a cafe. That still doesn’t find you Osama bin Ladin. For that you need human intelligence, which we just don’t have enough of. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/22 "2003-01-02T13:59:50Z")
> [@](#): > > The government has numerous spy satellites, and every reason to solve the inferometry issues that you mentioned along with much better funding. Which is why the government supports things like the NSF, which funds astronomers, physicists and mathematicians. Who exactly do you think the government would have gone to for the design of such an advanced system back in the days of 8 Mhz processors, the space aliens ? The military pushes the tech envelope by throwing money at low yield processes. That doesn’t get them access to things for which the theory is merely a glimmer in an astronomers eye. ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/23 "2003-01-03T03:29:33Z")
By now the United States has a satellite directly over Iraq, for surviellance purposes. And I think people in Area 51 might have worked on instruments to mount inside that particular satellite. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/24 "2003-01-03T04:18:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ficer67 \* > \*\*By now the United States has a satellite directly over Iraq, for surviellance purposes. \*\* You can’t park a satellite above a specific country. If you want a seatellie to have an uninterrupted view of Iraq you need to place it in geosynchronous orbit, and then it’d be too far to resolve anything. Spy satellites are usually placed in high inclination orbits so it can view any part of the earth a couple of times a day. As for the resolution limit, as already mentioned, resolution is determined by the aperture size. You can’t fit a pre-assembled telescope larger than the Hubble into any existing launch vehicle. You need a deployable (folding) mirror or an interferometer with telescoping booms to surpass the Hubble. I personally don’t believe either one has been achieved by the military yet. Optical interferometry is an immature technology even for ground-based astronomy. The first non-military space telescope with deployable optics will be the [JWST](http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/) (formerly known as NGST), but its spatial resolution will be no better than the Hubble, and it won’t be launched untill 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/25 "2003-01-03T04:22:54Z")
Well sure, but you gotta remember that even the [visitors to area 51](http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/restareas/ra51.htm) are only human. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/26 "2003-01-03T08:05:34Z")
We do not know what the military has in its arsenil, or what it may use for intelligence gathering. Secondly, there is no reason why a spy satellite cannot be in geosync. over any particular country. Thirdly, we are about to spend 50 billion dollars to mobilize people to do whatever we are going to do in iraq, and that is much more than the cost of one satellite, hence, we probably have a satellite in geosync over the middle east at-least if not totally dedicated to iraq. ---
**Author:** ![censored](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@censored](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/censored)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/27 "2003-01-03T08:32:00Z")
Ficer, the government does not have limitless supplies of money, nor do they have the ability to pull scientific miracles out of their hat. Even the NRO is a bureaucracy. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/28 "2003-01-03T08:35:39Z")
From 1998! > [@](#): > > Three are “visible light” satellites, the most recent of which **resemble the Hubble Space Telescope** and were built by the same contractor at the same Lockheed Martin facility in Sunnyvale, Calif. They are known in the spy trade as “Keyhole-class” satellites. And they have a resolution of 5 to 6 inches, meaning they can distinguish an object that small, but no smaller, on the ground. Two other satellites are radar- imaging, built by Lockheed Martin in Watertown, Colo. Their resolution is about 3 feet. Source: [http://www.msnbc.com/news/185953.asp](http://www.msnbc.com/news/185953.asp) From 1999 > [@](#): > > According to an estimate by the private Federation of American Scientists (FAS), three satellites operated by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) **have resolutions as sharp as 10 centimeters (3.93 inches) – in other words, the satellites can discern a softball-sized object from several hundred miles away.** > > Tim Brown, a security analyst at FAS, describes 10-centimeter resolution as “our best approximation, derived from a few sources.” The number and capabilities of U.S. spy satellites are classified. > > On rare occasion, Brown believes, NRO may dip one of its satellites into a low orbit to **take images at resolutions better than 10 centimeters.** Source: [http://www.space.com/news/gov\_imagery\_990921.html](http://www.space.com/news/gov_imagery_990921.html) > [@](#): > > The IMPROVED CRYSTAL **can be imagined as a Hubble Space Telescope** , with a large rocket engine attached to provide maneuverability. Like the Space Telescope, the IMPROVED CRYSTAL is about 4.5 meters (15 feet) in diameter, and with addition of its maneuvering module, is over 15 meters (50 feet) long (compared to the 13 meter Space Telescope). Contractors on the IMPROVED CRYSTAL include TRW and Lockheed. The dry weight (minus fuel) of the IMPROVED CRYSTAL is about 10 metric tons, about the same as the total weight, including fuel, of the KH-11. The total weight of the IMPROVED CRYSTAL has grown significantly, from the original 14 tons, to the current 18 tons. The additional fuel-carrying capacity accounts for most of the increase, and the IMPROVED CRYSTAL now can carry up to 7 tons of fuel. The primary difference between the 28,000 pound KH-11 and the heavier KH-12 is that the additional amount of maneuvering propellant carried on the IMPROVED CRYSTAL. This additional propellant can be used to prolong the operating life of the IMPROVED CRYSTAL, to maneuver to improve coverage of areas on the Earth of particular interest, and to maneuver to evade Soviet anti-satellite interceptors. Although the KH-12 was originally designed to be place into orbit (and perhaps serviced and refueled in orbit) by the Shuttle, the Titan 4 is now the primary launch vehicle for the IMPROVED CRYSTAL. Source: [http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm](http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm) > [@](#): > > The code named Kennan “Keyhole-class” (KH) reconnaissance satellites have been orbiting the Earth for more than 30 years. They are typically used to take overhead photos for military missions. The big question for a lot of people is: “What can they see?” > > **A KH-12 is a $1 billion satellite that resembles the Hubble Space Telescope** , except it is looking at our planet. For security reasons, there are no published orbit schedules for the imagery spacecraft. They are supplemented by the 15-ton Lacrosse-class radar-imaging satellites. Source: [http://www.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm](http://www.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm) In order to achieve the high resolutions required, spy satellites cannot be in a high [geosynchronous orbit](http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/geo-high.html). 'Nuff said. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852/29 "2003-01-03T08:45:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ficer67 \* > \*\*…there is no reason why a spy satellite cannot be in geosync. over any particular country. \*\* Yes there is. First of all, a geosynchronous orbit is by definition above the equator. Second, the geosynchronous orbit is 36,000 km high. To resolve a licence plate from that distance you need an angular resolution of about 0.5 milli-arcsecond. This requires a mirror 200 meters in diameter, or an interferometer with a 200-meter baseline. And the optics must be accurate and stable to about 1/4 of the wavelength of light - around 500 angstroms. Do you seriously think they have the technology and funding to build such a structure in space? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spy-satellites/145852.md?page=1)